Tuesday, October 28, 2014

One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions even amongst liberty movement activists is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines, and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out of control (or “lone wolf”) citizen/terrorist could reignite a biological firestorm, so, should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?

If the government in question was a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-Medical Martial Law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under ANY circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you DO NOT turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem.
The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.
The CDC now argues that in the case of people who may be potential carriers, or even in the case of people who refuse to undergo screenings, it has the legal authority to dissolve all constitutional protections and essentially imprison (quarantine) an American citizen for as long as they see fit to do so.
The Obama Administration is now using militant terminology in reference to Ebola response, including the formation of “Ebola SWAT Teams” for quick reaction to potential outbreak areas.
In typical socialist fashion, the nurses union 'National Nurses United' has called for Barack Obama to use “executive authority” to take control of all Ebola response protocols in hospitals across the country. Yet another perpetuation of the myth that more government power is the solution.
And finally, the Department of Defense has been tasked to create a military controlled “quick-strike team” to deal with Ebola within U.S. borders. This team will be under the command of none other than Northcom, apparently trampling the Posse Comitatus Act and setting the stage for the rationalized use of military personnel against U.S. citizens under the guise of pandemic prevention.
It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that medical martial law is being quietly prepared, and that the threat of such measures is not a paranoid conspiracy, but a very real possibility. It should also be noted that such provisions are not only the products of the Obama Administration. It was George W. Bush who first created laws intersecting with the World Health Organization's pandemic preparedness planning. These laws include the “overrule of existing legislation or (individual) human rights” in order to quell a viral outbreak, and were originally drafted around the potential of an influenza crisis.
It is this kind of executive overreach that has set precedence for states such as Connecticut to announce a tentative state of emergency with medical martial law restrictions.
I discussed in great detail why Ebola works in favor of establishment elites in my article 'An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists'.
Understand that bureaucrats will come to you with promises of offering a helping hand, hoping that you are afraid enough to accept, but their intentions will not be compassionate. Rather, their intent will be to assert as much dominance over the public as possible during the chaos, and to erase any conception the people may have had in the past that they have inalienable rights.
But going beyond the hidden motives of tyrants, I think it is important to point out that the Center for Disease Control and the federal government in general has already lost all credibility in dealing with Ebola, and therefore, it has lost any authority it may have had in administrating a future response.
Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for over thirty years. Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn't even receive guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously progressing out of control.
Why did the CDC leave Thomas Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case, in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper procedures in place to prevent further infection, and without a CDC team present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?
The argument presented by the White House, the CDC, and even the World Bank, has been that stopping direct or indirect travel from nations with an Ebola outbreak would be “impractical”, and that such travel bans would somehow “make matters worse”. They have yet to produce a logical explanation as to how this makes sense, but what if we did not need to institute a travel ban? The CDC, with it's massive budget, could easily establish quarantine measures in infected countries. Anyone wishing to travel outside of these nations would be welcome to do so, as long as they voluntarily participate in quarantine procedures for a set number of days. No quarantine, no plane ticket. Where has the CDC response been in Western Africa?
Why not use minor and measured travel restriction in Africa today, instead of using unprecedented martial law in America tomorrow? It makes no sense, unless, of course, the plan is to allow Ebola to spread...
Why has the White House nominated Ron Klain, a man who knows absolutely NOTHING about Ebola or medical emergency strategies, as the new “Ebola Czar”?
Why has all discussion on Ebola prevention revolved around government measures rather than community measures? Why has all talk centered on what the government will do AFTER an outbreak occurs, rather than on what can be done to prevent an outbreak in the first place?
The reality is that the federal government does not have any treatments for Ebola that are outside of the knowledge and capabilities of the average medically trained citizen. Meaning, the government and the CDC are NOT needed for a community to handle an Ebola outbreak, if that community is given proper guidelines and strategies in advance. Treatment for Ebola, at least in first world nations, consists primarily of regimented transfusions. These transfusions are a mixture of isotonic saline, electrolytes, and plasma, designed to keep the body supported until it's immune system can build up a proper defense to the virus. Natural and homeopathic methods can also boost immune system functions making the body resistant to the virus before it is ever contracted. The most effective of all treatments appears to be the transfusion of blood from a recovering patient with anti-bodies into a newly sick patient. This is likely the reason for the quick recovery of infected doctors like Kent Brantly.
The CDC would never be able to coherently organize a large scale program of transfusion initiatives, even if it wanted to. Most hospitals around the country have no isolation wards able to handle even a minor Ebola outbreak. The hospitals that do have facilities are limited to less than a dozen beds. According to the medical workers I have spoken with, most hospitals require a minimum of around 50 health professionals to deal with a single Ebola patient. In the event of an outbreak larger than a few people per state, the CDC and local hospitals are simply not equipped to react to the problem. Blood transfusions from recovering donors would be few and far between, unless organized by local citizens working under their own directives.
Ironically, it was the Bush Administration's own report in 2006 on the possibility of bird flu pandemic that admitted the government is completely unequipped to handle an outbreak of moderate size. The report stated that “all sources of external aid may be compromised during a pandemic,” and that "local communities will have to address the medical and non-medical effects of the pandemic with available resources." Little has changed in the federal government's pandemic preparations since the report was written.
This leaves individual communities to either prepare for the worst, or die off while waiting for the government to save them. Self isolation and self treatment are the only practical options.
The greatest danger to American citizens is, in fact, not the Ebola virus, but government reactions to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of modern vaccinations.
Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck's Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.
Glaxosmithkline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their products or outright lying about their effectiveness. Glaxo was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. Glaxo has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.
It is important to point out that Glaxo is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.
U.S. company Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic. The test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter and the mainstream media, but reports indicate that if the vaccine had been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have erupted.
Beyond the fact that vaccinations have a tendency to cripple our natural immune system and infect patients with the very disease they are meant to prevent, none of these existing companies can be trusted to produce a vaccine that is safe even by traditional pharmaceutical standards (which are very low). If the CDC and the federal government trigger a medical martial law scenario, they will most likely include forced vaccination of the population to maintain “herd immunity”. The bottom line? The use of such vaccines will be a death sentence for many, a death more certain than the contraction of Ebola. In my opinion, Ebola vaccination should be avoided at all costs by the American populace.
I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, or states. DHS and FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are also a no go, given FEMA's track record of dismal disaster response. They CANNOT be allowed to take control of our communities.
The only way for Americans to survive such an event is to cut out government entirely and establish their own medical strategies, as organizations like the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Teams (CPT) are doing.
If someone wants to voluntarily go to the CDC or FEMA for assistance, then they should be allowed to take that risk. However, medical martial law over all of us in the name of the “greater good” should not be tolerated. The government has proven beyond a doubt that it is not qualified to handle a viral crisis scenario, let alone determine what the “greater good” actually is. I can't speak for the whole of the Liberty Movement, but as for myself, if a group of hazmat suited thugs decides to chase me down with a syringe, I am relatively certain none of them will live through the encounter.
Will I be accused of aiding the spread of Ebola because of my non-compliance? Of course. Do I care? Not so much. Each individual American will have to make their own decision on this matter in due course. Is it better to conform and risk annihilation at the hands of an ignorant and/or corrupt government, or, to fight back and be labeled a bio-terrorist? With the clear lack of tangible government preventions for outbreak in the U.S., you'll probably get your chance to find out soon enough.

You can contact Brandon Smith at:
brandon@alt-market.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:http://www.alt-market.com/donateSilver and Gold are on their way back to historic highs, and now is the time to buy. Let LibertyCPM.com help you decide how to best protect your savings and insulate you from an ever destabilizing dollar.Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse? Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren't stocked, then you aren't prepared. To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10

Friday, October 24, 2014

"The Spirit Of Party"By Chuck BaldwinOctober 23, 2014

When I started my radio talk show back in 1994--and for the next six years
hosting the show--I was considered a hero by conservatives everywhere. Between
my leadership position with the Moral Majority back in the 1980s and my radio
talk show in the 1990s, I walked shoulder-to-shoulder with practically every
notable conservative leader, including Christian leaders, one could think of. I
traveled the country speaking with, and for, the most visible conservative
leaders in America. I became friends with a host of U.S. congressmen and
senators, not to mention several State governors. I even sat at the “king’s
table” with President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George H.W. Bush. I was
one of the “darlings” of conservatism. Just about anybody who was anybody was a
guest on my show.

I only mention all of that so readers can understand my background--along
with the “rest of the story” that brought me to where I am today.

Back in those days, I fell right in lock-step with the left-right paradigm:
Republicans were good; Democrats were bad. And even if the Republican was
downright bad, he wasn’t as bad as the Democrat. That doctrine was sacrosanct
and unassailable. And I believed that malarkey as much as anyone.

I started smelling a rat in 1996 when the GOP anointed Bob Dole as the next
“conservative” Republican who was going to lead us to the Promised Land. I knew
Dole well enough: he was anything but a conservative. In fact, he joined the
likes of Richard Nixon and now John Boehner who say that they have never read
the Republican Party platform. Boehner has gone so far as to say that he doesn’t
know anybody who has read it. He probably told the truth there. The vast
majority of Republican leaders in Washington, D.C., have not read it, don’t care
what it says, and give no heed to it. I knew in my heart that Bob Dole would be
a horrible President, and that he would NOT give a hoot in hades about obeying
the Constitution. Plus, I had developed a great respect for and friendship with
Pat Buchanan, who was an ardent conservative constitutionalist. So, I was
supporting Pat’s presidential candidacy.

There is so much I would love to tell you about the rest of that primary, but
let me fast forward to the end of the season. Toward the end of that 1996 GOP
primary season, the congressman that my radio talk show was largely responsible
for helping get elected, Joe Scarborough, came to me and pleaded, saying,
“Chuck, I’m the only Republican congressman to not have already endorsed Dole.
I’ve held out for as long as I can. Pat can’t win the nomination. It’s over.
Dole will be the candidate. We have to rally behind Dole in order to beat Bill
Clinton. You have to help me.”

I caved. For the sake of “party unity” and “defeating Bill Clinton,” I
totally capitulated. Remember the sacred doctrine: Republicans are always good
guys, and Democrats are always bad guys. And if even if the Republican is a bad
guy he is not as bad as the Democrat.

So, there I was, standing next to Senator Bob Dole and Congressman Joe
Scarborough at a press conference at the General Aviation office at the
Pensacola, Florida, regional airport publicly endorsing the Republican Bob Dole
for President of the United States. Albeit, I was still wearing my Pat Buchanan
lapel pin. My defiance wasn’t dead, only crippled.

As I walked to my car after the press conference, I felt sick. I mean,
totally and thoroughly sick. I had betrayed my convictions and my conscience,
and I knew it. I vowed then and there that I would never again support a
candidate---any candidate, no matter what his or her party label--for any public
office that I did not believe in my heart would at least be faithful to the
essential principles of liberty upon which our country was built.

For the next four years I marched forward with my radio talk show extolling
the principles of liberty as loudly as I knew how. Mind you, the bitter taste of
my compromise stayed in my mouth. It never went away. Still hasn’t. In addition,
the next four years afforded me great opportunity to awaken to a host of truths,
including the truth that both major parties in Washington, D.C., were actually
not all that different. I came to realize that what Pat Buchanan had said was
really true: “There are not two political parties in Washington, D.C., just two
wings of the same bird of prey.”

One of the highlights of that awakening came when I interviewed David
Schippers, who was the lead counsel for the House Judiciary Committee in the
Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. He told me that as he pleaded with Republican
leaders in the Senate (Trent Lott, Ted Stevens, etc.) to look at the evidence
that his legal team had gathered, one of the “good guy” Republican senators
said, “David, we don’t care if you have a video tape of the President raping a
woman, then standing up and shooting her dead, we are not going to vote to
remove this President from office.”

Schippers, a lifelong Democrat, was absolutely stunned. You can imagine.
Schippers was a tough, no-nonsense, right-is-right, law-and-order kind of guy.
He was the guy who took on the Chicago mafia--and won. He was an honest Democrat
who was willing to unveil the criminality of a corrupt Democrat. Now he was
watching a group of Republican senators in Washington, D.C., make the mafia look
like good guys.

Schippers wrote a book of the whole sordid ordeal called, “Sellout: The
Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.” It was published by Regnery
Publishing. If you’ve never read it, you should do so immediately. The real
story will shock you. And you will discover that, no, the Republicans are NOT
always good guys--or even the “lesser of two evils.”

Enter the 2000 presidential elections. By now, my eyes were much wider open
than they had been four years ago. But when G.W. Bush first ran for President,
he said all of the right things. He said he was pro-life, pro-Constitution,
pro-liberty, pro-less government, pro-Bill of Rights, etc. So in 2000, I
supported G.W.

I’m still doing my radio talk show (and by now I was writing this column);
I’m still a conservative hero; I’m still basking in the “success” of being a
conservative Republican “darling.”

But that’s when the fun started! It didn’t take very long to realize that
G.W. Bush was as phony as a three dollar bill. He was no “conservative.” He was
not pro-liberty, pro-Bill of Rights or anything of the kind. G.W. Bush was Bill
Clinton on steroids! Bill Clinton tried to pass what became known as the USA
Patriot Act, but couldn’t get it done. Bush passed it with ease. He signed the
Military Commissions Act into law; he gave America an unconstitutional national
police force known as the Department of Homeland Security. Bill Clinton never
attempted and could never have accomplished such things. G.W. Bush introduced
the “preemptive war” doctrine to America. He invaded nations that had absolutely
NOTHING to do with 9/11. He signed a law authorizing U.S. federal agents--or
even military troops--to seize American citizens on U.S. soil and incarcerate
them indefinitely without a subpoena or court order of any kind, without habeas
corpus, without legal counsel, or any other requirement of justice guaranteed in
our Bill of Rights. In truth, everything that Barack Obama is using today to
abuse the power of the presidency, he borrowed from G.W. Bush.

So, by 2002 and 2003, and with the bitter taste of Bob Dole still gagging me,
I made a decision: I will no longer protect and support Republicans for the sake
of “party unity” or for the sake of “he’s not as bad as the Democrat.” No! In
truth, it dawned on me that many times Republicans were WORSE than Democrats.
From now on I was going to be faithful to my convictions and to the truth as I
understood it.

Many of these “pragmatic political scientists” view politics as nothing more
than mathematical formulas, test tube experiments, and lab rats. They will
support and endorse any formula, no matter how evil the immediate process might
be, in order to obtain their supposed “greater good” objective. They recognize
absolutely nothing moral or immoral as it relates to politics. It is just
“science.” Nothing is right; nothing is wrong; it’s all about putting in the
right formulas in order to obtain some lofty, utopian, long-term objective.

In theological terms, the above is called “moral relativism.” In
philosophical terms, it is called, “the end justifies the means.” In military
terms, it is called, “might makes right.” In business terms, it is called,
“what’s good for General Motors is good for America.” And it’s all a bunch of
horse manure!

Republican shills will accept practically any evil committed by Republicans
under the rubric of the “lesser of two evils” mantra. Democrat apologists will
do the same for their fellow Democrats. In truth, party loyalists from both the
Republican and Democrat parties in Washington, D.C., are giving America the
royal SHAFT.

Our first and greatest president, George Washington, tried to warn us about
this danger in his masterful “Farewell Address.” Washington said that the
“spirit of party” (meaning, the preoccupation with, and loyalty to, political
parties) was our “worst enemy.” He said it was “sharpened by the spirit of
revenge,” and that it “perpetuated the most horrid enormities.” He said that the
“spirit of party” led to “a more formal and permanent despotism.” He said the
leaders of political parties would be elevated “on the ruins of public liberty.”
He said it is “the interest and duty of wise people to discourage and restrain
it.”

Washington went on to say that the “spirit of party” “agitates the community
with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.” He said it “opens the door to
foreign influence and corruption.” He said the “force of public opinion” must
always “mitigate and assuage it.” Then, Washington ended this section of the
address saying, “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to
prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should
consume.”

Every warning George Washington gave us concerning the “spirit of party” has
come true in modern America. Party hacks place more loyalty to doing what is
good for their party than doing what is good for their country. In many
respects, their preoccupation with party partisanship has become their own worst
enemy, just as Washington warned. These party shills constantly demonstrate the
“spirit of revenge.” In the name of fighting FUTURE despotism, party hacks
constantly surrender to an IMMEDIATE and “more formal and permanent despotism.”
Party members are “elevated [elected] on the ruins of public liberty.” Party
shills are constantly agitating “the community with ill-founded jealousies and
false alarms [especially about how bad the other party’s candidate is].” Party
shills stand back and say nothing when their party opens the door to “foreign
influence and corruption.” Again, to them, party is more important than
country.

The fascination with “political science” demonstrated by party hacks reveals
a complete lack of moral conscience. Remember, to party hacks, nothing is right
or wrong, only better or worse. Their mantra is, “Our party is better; their
party is worse.” And virtually every moral and constitutional malfeasance
committed by the favored party member is justified under this mantra.

Thus, Bill Clinton’s repeated perjuries could take the Office of The
President of The United States to the brink of disgrace and ruin and, yet, he
could still be thought a hero by Democrats. And G.W. Bush’s unconstitutional
wars and assaults against the Bill of Rights could take the American people to
the brink of totalitarian government and, yet, he could still be thought a hero
by Republicans.

Needless to say, when I started telling the truth about G.W. Bush on my radio
talk show (just as I had done when Clinton was in office), the “darling” luster
quickly vanished. Suddenly, where I was once a hero, now I was a villain. Where
I was once a man with great conviction and honor, now I was considered
extremist--or even evil. But I was standing for the exact same principles and
ideals I had always stood for. But because I was no longer loyal to the “spirit
of party,” I became a political outcast. George Washington was exactly
right!

As most readers know, I went on to run for President of the United States
after Ron Paul was defeated in the Republican primaries in 2008. There was no
way in hades I was going to pull another Bob Dole poison pill out of the GOP Big
Pharma pill box and vote for the Neocon John McCain. So, when hundreds of Pat
Buchanan/Ron Paul conservatives asked me to help keep the voice of
constitutional government alive in the 2008 presidential campaign by seeking the
presidential nomination of the Constitution Party, I did just that. And as far
as I know, I am the only candidate for President that Ron Paul publicly endorsed
since Ronald Reagan.

And, no, I didn’t vote for the Neocon Mitt Romney in 2012. And I won’t vote
for any Neocon candidate in 2014. And should the GOP nominate another Neocon for
President in 2016, I won’t vote for him either.

The liberties of the American people protected in the Bill of Rights are not
test tube rats to be scientifically dissected and analyzed by party hacks, who
love to call themselves political scientists. Our liberties and freedoms are not
subject to the pragmatic “lesser evil” agendas of party shills--be they
Democrats or Republicans.

We have been trading Democrats for Republicans and vice versa for as long as
any of us can remember. And where has it gotten us? I realize that compromise is
necessary in many aspects of politics--but NOT when it comes to the fundamental
tenets of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. Compromise of
those fundamental tenets is not compromise at all; it is appeasement and the
worst kind of surrender. And to support those who commit such crimes in the name
of party partisanship is the worst kind of patriotism.

Here is the problem. The political scientists and hacks among us do NOT
recognize in any way, shape, manner or form, the SPIRITUAL warfare that we face.
They do not recognize the spirit of darkness that governs in high places. They
cannot recognize nor comprehend that the Evil One can just as easily accomplish
his devilish purposes through a Republican office-holder as he can through a
Democrat office-holder. Even many professing Christians seem to suffer from this
myopia. It seems lost to them that there could be very powerful people who are
masters at manipulating “conservative Republicans” and “liberal Democrats” alike
for their own wicked and evil purposes. Well, there are; and they do. To single
out one party as inherently “worse” and another party as inheritably “better” is
the height of naiveté.

In fact, in many ways an “in the dark” Republican is MORE DANGEROUS than an
“in the dark” Democrat, because the Republican is operating under the ruse of
“light.” An enemy who wears the uniform of a friend is more dangerous than an
enemy who wears the uniform of an enemy. That’s why G.W. Bush got away with a
whole lot more than Bill Clinton did. And that’s why Mitt Romney would have
gotten away with a whole lot more than Barack Obama has. And that’s why your
local Neocon Republican congressional or senatorial candidate will get away with
a whole lot more than your local Democrat candidate.

I made my decision as I walked away from a press conference with Bob Dole
back in 1996. Somehow, in that short walk from the press room to my car, I came
to agree with George Washington; and I traded the “spirit of party” for the
“Spirit of ’76.” And I’ve never looked back.

These are the times that try the souls of men. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered, yet we have this as consolation. That the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. Our government with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared the right not only to tax but to bind us in all ways. And if being bound in this manner is not slavery, then there is no such a thing as slavery. We are repeating history and I would rather face God as a serial killer than to face God as a member of our house, or senate, or Barack Obama. It is time to fight back! Anyone who doesn’t believe that is a coward. We are reliving the very same things the founders lived through with one difference. They were subjects to a King we are freemen in a republic. Their only option was revolution and cutting off peoples heads. We have greater and more peaceful methods at our disposal. We have nullification. So listen up! - http://krisannehall.com/id-rather-serial-killer/

Thursday, October 9, 2014

I love the liberty found in the spirit of America. And that's why I love America. But what do I have left when liberty vanishes from America. It is just soil, like the soil that can be found anywhere else on earth.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Where Liberty is there is my country". In second Corinthians 3:17 says now Lord is that spirit.... And where the spirit the Lord is there is liberty.

Well that's interesting. Now put the two together, where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. And where liberty is there is my country. Did you really think removing God from this nation, would come without a price.